14-15 November 2018
|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:2005:T129004.20050311|
|Date of decision:||11 March 2005|
|Case number:||T 1290/04|
|IPC class:||C07C 253/24|
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||Catalyst and process for producing nitriles|
|Applicant name:||Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation|
|Opponent name:||BASF Aktiengesellschaft|
|Relevant legal provisions:||
|Keywords:||Missing Statement of Grounds|
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal contests the decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office posted on 6. September 2004 revoking European patent No. 0 529 853 pursuant to Article 102(1) EPC.
The Appellant (Proprietor of the patent) filed a notice of appeal on 3 November 2004 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day.
No statement of grounds was filed. The notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC.
II. In a communication dated 2 February 2005 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the Registry of the Board informed the Appellant that no statement of grounds had been filed and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible.
The Appellant was informed about the possibility of filing a request for re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC and was invited to file observations within two months.
III. By letter dated 23 February 2005, the Appellant stated that it had decided not to pursue this appeal and that the failure to file a written statement of grounds had been intentional. Furthermore, it was confirmed that the auxiliary request for oral proceedings was not intended to apply to the question of inadmissibility of the appeal as a consequence of the fact that a written statement of grounds of appeal had not been filed.
Reasons for the Decision
As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 65(1) EPC).
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.